Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
that must be covered by any health plan offering a plan in the aca exchange. i understand this has far reaching consequences on premiums. benefits must be provided. according to the notice in the federal register, the rule was approved by administrator on august 1, 2012. that is three months before. yet the role did not receive approval from secretary sebillius until two weeks ago. what did it take two month for the administration staff to review -- and yet the public will have only four weeks to review during the period of public comment on the ruling issued on november 26? i would note this is a time of year when people's focus is generally on things other than long awaited rules. >> we put a bulletin on the essential health benefits quite some time ago and got comments on the bulletin. the public had an opportunity to provide public comment on essential health benefits before the proposed rule was put out. there were some changes from what had been in the bulletin, but by and large what is in the bulletin is what is a in the proposed rule. i think there has been ample opportunity fo
'll see a cut to health care. the -- plan to actually put the aca into place simply cannot go through with this plan. so we're talking about real cuts to folks' real lives. that's an important point of what's going on. >> fair enough. really more down the road. you heard ben jealous worry about that. let me just ask you -- >> the aca is going to raise health care costs monumentally. >> that's not a budget -- >> yes it is. >> reduce costs for consumers and cut the budget deficit by 1 $180 billion. what's the base of your projection? you're pulling it out of the air. >> no, i'm not. the congressional budget office keeps making costs increase from what they originally projected. now that various individual plans and firms are costing out what they're going to have to do, you're saying far more firms are going to be not covering people. this plan was conceived in a way that didn't understand the economic consequences. >> just to the clarify, the aca, obama care. >> yes. the affordable care act. >> basically protects -- >> anything but protect patients or be affordable. it is orwellian. >
. perhaps he will vote with the liberals. and i also look optimistically at justice roberts who in the aca decision shows us he cares about the court's legacy. he doesn't want to be part of a decision that later people look book on and say he was part of taking away people's liberty. right now i am not optimistic about what this court will do. >> we've had one optimistic, one pessimistic. michelle, don't i dare sit on the fence. >> no, no. i'm off the fence. okay. i will say i agree that the court's composition should make some people nervous but i think the timing, they just had gay marriage wins at the ballot box and there has been a sea change among the electorate on this issue and it would be a little bit troublesome for the court to then at this point step in and say, no, no, we know the country is moving in this direction but we're going to stop you. >> indeed, michelle, you have actually written yourself that the president's base in a second term wants the repeal of the defense of marriage act. you've written that yourself. >> they think it's time, and they think that they've had en
intermediate deficit problem and implementation of the cost saving measures strengthened over time in the aca will deal with their long-term health care problem. so we are not that far away and we have other tremendous strengths in our country that would allow us to make the kind of investment to transform the economy, to do with the reality of stagnant wages and a sense of diminished opportunities. we have strengths. we can do it. we need the public to rain and behavior that's destructive and we need political leaders to act forcefully. given enough to bipartisan commissions and searched enough for bipartisan consensus. for sensible hard all politics along these lines. >> norm, i particularly cutie take the money question. a couple political had a great shared that showed that party polarization in congress was directly correlated with increasing concentrations of wealth from increasing equality went together artisan polarization. and the money question you can handle so many different ways. i'm really concerned about it posed citizens united system with a federal election commission that's
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4